arch-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a read-only information retrieval operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the fallback mechanism (local pacman vs. API), the preference for official packages, and an example of return data, enhancing the agent's understanding of how the tool behaves in different scenarios.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with key information in a single, efficient sentence, followed by a practical example. Every sentence adds value: the first defines purpose and behavior, the second provides usage guidance, and the third gives a concrete example. There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and includes an example. A minor gap is the lack of explicit output format details, but with annotations indicating safety and the description listing return data types, it's sufficient for effective agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'package_name' well-documented as 'Exact package name'. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only implying through the example query 'python' that it accepts package names. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema already provides comprehensive parameter information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get information' and resource 'official Arch repository package', specifying scope (Core, Extra, etc.) and distinguishing it from AUR packages. It explicitly mentions what information is returned (version, dependencies, install size, repository location), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated from siblings like search_aur.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Always prefer official packages over AUR when available' and mentions an alternative (AUR). It also indicates context for usage: 'Uses local pacman if available, otherwise queries archlinux.org API', helping the agent choose between local and remote queries based on availability.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.